Moronic idea: license suspension for non-driving offenses

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_face_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

"Parents face charges in drinking by teens
"Adults who allow alcohol are at risk
"By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff | May 30, 2004


[...]

" Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
[...] has pushed for a bill, supported by the Massachusetts District
Attorneys Association, that would suspend for two years the driver's
license of anyone convicted of allowing minors to drink. Currently,
the maximum penalties are one year in prison or a $2,000 fine."

[end of quote from article]

Comment:

Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.

First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended for unsafe driving
(especially repeat-drunk drivers).
Develop means to catch drivers who drive around uninsured.
(Exception: if the uninsured driver hasn't had an accident or other
serious violation that would raise his insurance premium, he could be
shown some leniency.) Ask for Federal help to get around our unique
State loophole that prevents juries from learning that drunk-driving
defendants turned down breathalyzer tests.

Once those who shouldn't be driving really have stopped driving, then,
*maybe*, one could consider license suspensions for unrelated coercive
purposes. Even then, however, other sanctions are likely to be more
effective and less harmful.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[David Chesler]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Ask for Federal help to get around our unique
State loophole that prevents juries from learning that drunk-driving
defendants turned down breathalyzer tests.

"The Bill of Rights: Ten Impediments to Effective Law Enforcement?"

Otherwise I'm with you (although this horse has been out of the barn
for a while.)

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:53:41 GMT, David Chesler
<***@post.harvard.edu> wrote:

[...]

Post by David Chesler
Otherwise I'm with you (although this horse has been out of the barn
for a while.)

True, some of these suspension laws have been on the books for several
years now.
The USSC has sometimes acted vigorously on behalf of a
Constitutional "freedom to travel." (Do they derive it from the
Fourteenth Amendment?) This would be an excellent occasion for them
to step forward and rule that license restrictions, infringing a
fundamental liberty, can *only* be justified when protecting against
unsafe driving.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Hilton Evans]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:53:41 GMT, David Chesler
[...]

Post by David Chesler
Otherwise I'm with you (although this horse has been out of the barn
for a while.)

True, some of these suspension laws have been on the books for several
years now.
The USSC has sometimes acted vigorously on behalf of a
Constitutional "freedom to travel." (Do they derive it from the
Fourteenth Amendment?)

Can you give or cite a couple of examples?

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
This would be an excellent occasion for them
to step forward and rule that license restrictions, infringing a
fundamental liberty, can *only* be justified when protecting against
unsafe driving.

Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.
--
--
Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://home.earthlink.net/~hiltonevans/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm

[David S Chesler]

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

[Charles Demas]

Post by David S Chesler

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

TV stations are licenced, and there are licences required to operate
them.

How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom of speech
ideas?


Chuck Demas

[David Chesler]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by David S Chesler

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

TV stations are licenced, and there are licences required to operate
them.
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom of speech
ideas?

The FCC is on the very thin ice that the frequencies are a limited
resource, and the ice gets thinner the more they look at content.
That ice may rest on the same "time/place/manner" as that there is
only one Main Street, so if you want to shut it down to have an
expressive parade, you've got to coordinate with City Hall.
(In some people's idea of a just world, those metaphors would
be illegal. :-) )

Unlike Hilton, I don't conclude from this exception that there is
no freedom of the press (assuming that's what he means when he
distinguishes rights from privileges.)

[John F. Carr]

Post by David Chesler

Post by Charles Demas

Post by David S Chesler

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

TV stations are licenced, and there are licences required to operate
them.
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom of speech
ideas?

The FCC is on the very thin ice that the frequencies are a limited
resource, and the ice gets thinner the more they look at content.

Abandoning the pretense that limited bandwidth justifies the
FCC, the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that the government
could prescribe content of cable TV systems without violating
the First Amendment.

So broadcasting is much like driving -- a former right that
has been converted to a "privilege" because the government
says it is a privilege.

[Flatus Elegante]

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

[Tom Royer]

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

That's "tack".

Sorry, couldn't resist.
--
Tom Royer
Lead Engineer
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Voice: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

"If you're not free to fail, you're not free." -- Gene Burns

[Flatus Elegante]

Post by Tom Royer

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

That's "tack".

Well, duh! I was just making a second (apparently
too-subtle) joke by extending the sailing theme.
(sigh) the perils of porcine pearl presentation...

[Marc Dashevsky]

Post by Tom Royer

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

That's "tack".
Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's the way to hone in on the real issue.

Actually, this alteration of "home in" is common enough to make
it into some dictionaries, but confusion between jive/jibe,
tack/tact, and hone/home is something I hear just about every day.

[Dick Margulis]

Post by Marc Dashevsky

Post by Tom Royer

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

That's "tack".
Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's the way to hone in on the real issue.
Actually, this alteration of "home in" is common enough to make
it into some dictionaries, but confusion between jive/jibe,
tack/tact, and hone/home is something I hear just about every day.

Add "loose" for "lose" and "lead" for "led" to the list of confusions
(in writing rather than in speech) that have suddenly become so
commonplace that a day doesn't go by without encountering at least one
of them.

[Carl Witthoft]

Post by Dick Margulis

Post by Marc Dashevsky

Post by Tom Royer

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

That's "tack".
Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's the way to hone in on the real issue.
Actually, this alteration of "home in" is common enough to make
it into some dictionaries, but confusion between jive/jibe,
tack/tact, and hone/home is something I hear just about every day.

Add "loose" for "lose" and "lead" for "led" to the list of confusions
(in writing rather than in speech) that have suddenly become so
commonplace that a day doesn't go by without encountering at least one
of them.

Heh j00 r 4 n00B! PH34R teh 31337 5K!llZ ! W3 PWnE u

[Charles Demas]

Post by Flatus Elegante

Post by Charles Demas
How does that jive with your freedom of press/freedom
of speech ideas?

ATTENTION: Your use of "jive" is jive. You probably meant "jibe",
unless you intended to take a different tact... ;->

Well, on the keyboard v and b are right next door to each other.

I don't remember what I meant to type, so it may have been a typo.


Chuck Demas

[Dave]

Post by David S Chesler
By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

[g***@hanley.net]

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

I haven't had the need to do this in awhile:

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right to use those
roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's right to use the roads.

That old line you've been fed since you were a teenager about driving being a
privilege is hogwash. You paid for the roads - you have the right to use them!

-- Gary

[Dave]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right to use those
roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's right to use the roads.
That old line you've been fed since you were a teenager about driving being a
privilege is hogwash. You paid for the roads - you have the right to use them!

LOL

Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

Idiot.

[g***@hanley.net]

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

Nope. You aren't listening. Let's try again, shall we:

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.

The state might prefer to disagree but that doesn't make
them correct.

It's simple logic if you *think* about it.

Any questions?

-- Gary

[Charles Demas]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.
The state might prefer to disagree but that doesn't make
them correct.
It's simple logic if you *think* about it.

My taxes paid for the plutanium production facility, so I have a
right to drive through it?

How about the military bases? I paid for them too.

Your logic seems flawed.


Chuck Demas

[Dave]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.
The state might prefer to disagree but that doesn't make
them correct.
It's simple logic if you *think* about it.
Any questions?

Yeah ... were you born a moron, or is it a skill you acquired over time?

You're the one who's not "listening". The State can prefer to disagree
because it's the law. I paid for State Police cruisers and their
helicopter with some of my tax dollars, but the State is certainly not going
to let me use them, now are they?.

Here's some web sites for you, shit-for-brains:

http://www.statedrivinglaw.com/massachusetts-driving-law.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.02/dmv.html
http://www.lawsguide.com/mylawyer/guideview.asp?layer=3&article=623

HTH FOAD

[g***@hanley.net]

Post by Dave
You're the one who's not "listening". The State can prefer to disagree
because it's the law. I paid for State Police cruisers and their
helicopter with some of my tax dollars, but the State is certainly not going
to let me use them, now are they?.

Ahh, but you miss the point, silly child. Ya see, the roads were originally created
by people for travel by people. Then came the cars, then came the pavement,
then came the laws. Ya see any logic yet?

I didn't think so.

The point is that the people always had a first right to road - especially when
the people pay to maintain it. Equating a right to drive a car with a right
to drive a cruiser or a helicopter on a road is just silly.

The right to bear arms doesn't allow one to own a nuke now, does it?

I can't imagine a court case where someone would waste time and money to
get the Supreme Court to decide if driving is a privilege or a right - but if
I had the luxury of unlimited time and money I might be willing to try just
to piss off people like you because I am fairly confident I could prevail with
a good lawyer. :-)

-- Gary

[Dave]

Post by g***@hanley.net
I can't imagine a court case where someone would waste time and money to
get the Supreme Court to decide if driving is a privilege or a right - but if
I had the luxury of unlimited time and money I might be willing to try just
to piss off people like you because I am fairly confident I could prevail with
a good lawyer. :-)

What you don't have the luxury of is the basic intelligence of an average
person, douchebag.

[Ed]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic,

if

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property

taxes

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to

drive a

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.
The state might prefer to disagree but that doesn't make
them correct.
It's simple logic if you *think* about it.
Any questions?

Yeah ... were you born a moron, or is it a skill you acquired over time?

I'm betting on the latter.

[Bill Duncan]

I prefer it being called a privilege - I don't like the government getting
in the habit of revoking rights.

Bill Duncan

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.
The state might prefer to disagree but that doesn't make
them correct.
It's simple logic if you *think* about it.
Any questions?
-- Gary

[g***@hanley.net]

Post by Bill Duncan
I prefer it being called a privilege - I don't like the government getting
in the habit of revoking rights.

Are you alluding to the privilege to smoke? :-)

-- Gary

[Ed]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Check the MGL to see how wrong you are. If you use your shithead logic, if
I didn't have children then I could deduct the portion of my property taxes
that go toward paying for schools. The ability to have a license to drive a
motorized vehicle in the Commonwealth of MA is a privilege, not a right.

You paid for it so you have the right to use it.

I also paid for the State House, but I'm not allowed to camp out in it.

[B***@fractious.net]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right
to use those roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's
right to use the roads.

You betcha. And since my taxes have paid for the White House,
I think I'm going to go use the crapper off the oval office.

Jeez. Just because your taxes paid for something doesn't mean
squat with respect to your right to use it.

[David S Chesler]

Post by B***@fractious.net

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right
to use those roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's
right to use the roads.

You betcha. And since my taxes have paid for the White House,
I think I'm going to go use the crapper off the oval office.

Is the White House a road? Gary's statement is not generalizable
(there are plenty of things his taxes pay for other than roads
that he doesn't have a right to use), nor does it state an accurate
dependency (his right to use the roads derives from his being a
member of the public, not from his taxes) but as a strict conditional
it is true. He has every right to use the roads as long as certain
conditions are met. It would be equally true if he had said "If
I am wearing red sneakers I have every right to use the roads."

Post by B***@fractious.net
Jeez. Just because your taxes paid for something doesn't mean
squat with respect to your right to use it.

Agreed. But he has a right to use the roads.

[Ed]

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right to use those
roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's right to use the roads.

and being caught driving drunk is not infringing on anyone else's right
to use the roads?

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Post by Ed

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right to use those
roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's right to use the roads.

and being caught driving drunk is not infringing on anyone else's right
to use the roads?

I don't believe that's what he said.

Making it substantially less safe for another person to use the road
infringes on his right to use it, whether the reduction in safety is
caused by drunk driving or by pointing a loaded rifle at him.

On the other hand, continuing to drive on the road after your license
was suspended for overdue taxes does not substantially endanger other
drivers.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Ed]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by g***@hanley.net

Post by Dave
Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

BZZT! Sorry wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
Very simply, if my taxes are paying for the roads I have every right to use those
roads as long as I'm not infringing on anyone else's right to use the roads.

and being caught driving drunk is not infringing on anyone else's right
to use the roads?

I don't believe that's what he said.
Making it substantially less safe for another person to use the road
infringes on his right to use it, whether the reduction in safety is
caused by drunk driving or by pointing a loaded rifle at him.
On the other hand, continuing to drive on the road after your license
was suspended for overdue taxes does not substantially endanger other
drivers.

Depends on whether your insurance will pay for any damage and injuries
you might cause while driving with a suspended license.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Making it substantially less safe for another person to use the road
infringes on his right to use it, whether the reduction in safety is
caused by drunk driving or by pointing a loaded rifle at him.
On the other hand, continuing to drive on the road after your license
was suspended for overdue taxes does not substantially endanger other
drivers.

Depends on whether your insurance will pay for any damage and injuries
you might cause while driving with a suspended license.

That would an artificial condition caused by misuse of government
power, not by unsafe practices of the driver.
The proper remedy would be for government regulators to require that
the insurance remain valid, unless the license was suspended for
bona-fide unsafe-driving reasons.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[David S Chesler]

Post by Dave

Post by David S Chesler
By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

Hello, moron: a license to drive is a privilege -- not a right.

I don't generally answer this troll-of-many-pseudos whom I seem
to annoy so much, but this is exactly what the crux of the
question at hand is. First we would have to define our terms.

Generally when folks say something is a privilege rather than a right,
they are saying so in support of the state arbitrarily restricting
the exercise of that thing. I don't know if this has any foundation
in law.

SCOTUS does talk about "fundamental rights", including especially
those explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. When a government
is going to abridge or infringe on them, its reasons must be examined
in the strictest scrutiny. Real Constitutional lawyers could tell us
the multipoint tests that apply to such rights generally, and to each
particular right, and could tell us which rights have been found to
be "fundamental".

Regardless of being a "fundamental right" or not, equal protection
and due process always apply. The governments can't be arbitrary; they
have to have at least a rational reason, but that's a very low bar.

Before there were automobiles there were public roads, and anyone was
free to use them without any license. A century ago when cars were
new they were scary, and everybody thought, and most people still think,
that there should be some assurance that only people with some training
and expertise ought to be allowed to operate cars on the road. We'll
let anyone walk or ride a horse or bicycle, but motor vehicles are
_different_. I personally think lots and lots of training is a good
idea; I'm not so sure that the current licensing scheme is the best
way to achieve safety. That is, how much worse would things be if
anyone who was generally competent to make contracts and so forth
were allowed to drive without bothering to go through the hoops that
just about anybody can go through anyway? (Such a system might require
more liabilities and punishments for bad driving, but it would avoid
what is called in other areas "prior restraint".)

But in any case, this licensing to restrict the formerly unlimited
ability to use the roads was for safety reasons.

In general we don't like cruel or unusual punishments. We don't like
scarlet letters. For lesser violations we impose fines; for greater
crimes we impose imprisonment. And we don't go messing with other
stuff, except when it's directly related to the crime, like a hacker
forbidden to use computers, or a child molester forbidden to have
contact with children. Losing the permission to drive as punishment
for having demonstrated oneself to be an unsafe driver by driving
drunk, or committing motor vehicle homicide, makes sense.

But then someone had the brilliant idea that it's so easy to pull
a driver's license, that it could be used as a creative punishment.
If someone who has only reached the age of majority in the past three
years drinks, pull his license -- some convoluted thinking can lead
one to think that the kind of kid who would drink at a party might
be just the kind of kid to drive irresponsibly. And if someone falls
behind on his child support, well anything is acceptable if it's
"for the children"! The current proposal is just another step down
that same slope.

[Hilton Evans]

Post by David S Chesler

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

And by your implied reasoning anyone could
hop into a Cessna and fly to Logan airport
without a license or transponder invoking
his freedom to travel. Note: I have flown
into Logan w/o a transponder, but I had
a license and still needed permission to
travel into its airspace.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Post by David S Chesler

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privalege to use a method not a right to travel.

By this reasoning there would be nothing wrong with requiring
a license to use any kind of a printing press more sophisticated
than hand-set movable type. And we could then point to that
license and conclude that there is no "freedom of the press",
just a "privilege of the press."

Hilton> And by your implied reasoning anyone could
Hilton> hop into a Cessna and fly to Logan airport
Hilton> without a license or transponder invoking
Hilton> his freedom to travel. Note: I have flown
Hilton> into Logan w/o a transponder, but I had
Hilton> a license and still needed permission to
Hilton> travel into its airspace.

None of these posts present much "reasoning" about the nature of
rights, privileges, and freedoms under our system of government.
A more interesting discussion would be about the legal theories
involved in these examples and the court cases that have been
tried so far. Any sixth grader knows that rights in a society
are not absolute, but are balanced against the rights of others
individually and collectively, and that the government judges
how to balance its power against those rights.
Rights may be inaliable, but their expressions are not unlimited.
The word "privilege" is something of a red herring; I think the
question under discussion here is about when the government restricts
a basic right under the guise of a public safety interest, but then
acts outside those bounds to revoke that freedom for reasons unrelated
to the justification. Since this is usually done by saying that it
wasn't a "right" at all, I would start with some elementary constitutional
law by looking at any USSC cases that examine the word "privilege".

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:44:39 GMT, "Hilton Evans"

Post by Hilton Evans

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:53:41 GMT, David Chesler
[...]

Post by David Chesler
Otherwise I'm with you (although this horse has been out of the barn
for a while.)

True, some of these suspension laws have been on the books for several
years now.
The USSC has sometimes acted vigorously on behalf of a
Constitutional "freedom to travel." (Do they derive it from the
Fourteenth Amendment?)

Can you give or cite a couple of examples?

I thought a google search would suffice, but a search against "freedom
to travel" and "USSC" brings a flood of ultra-libertarian citings
disparaging even such reasonable restrictions as driving tests and
mandatory insurance. For what it is worth, a sample one is at
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Travel/dmvbrief.htm

Though not asked to so far, the USSC could draw a distinction between
"reasonable" restrictions (driving tests and insurance) designed to
make travel safer for everyone, and ones unrelated to travel safety.

For the "right to travel" as applied by the USSC to welfare residency
requirements:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/supremeresidency.htm

A judge mentions the "right to travel" while discussing a local law to
ban convicted drug users from certain neighborhoods:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_office/Justice_Pfeifer/2001/jp103101.asp
Quoted text copyright (c) 2000 by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer

Drug Exclusion Zones
by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer
[...]

"The ordinance's impact on the right to travel, however, was another
matter. The right to travel is not expressly enumerated in the
Constitution. But previous United States Supreme Court decisions have
established that the right to travel "from one place to another
according to inclination, is an attribute of…liberty…secured by the
Fourteenth Amendment."

"Although the United States Supreme Court has only dealt with
interstate travel, we believe the right extends to intrastate travel.
"Historically," Chief Justice Moyer wrote, "it is beyond contention
that being able to travel innocently throughout the country has been
an aspect of our national freedom. Likewise, the right to travel
within a state is no less fundamental than the right to travel between
the states.

""Every citizen of this state…enjoys the freedom of mobility not only
to cross our borders into our sister states, but also to roam about
innocently in the wide-open spaces of our state parks or through the
streets and sidewalks of our most populous cities. This freedom of
mobility is a tradition extending back to when the first settler
crossed into what would eventually become this great state, and it is
a tradition no Ohioan would freely relinquish."

[end of quotes from Judge Pfeifer]

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Rick Merrill]

Hilton Evans wrote:
...

Post by Hilton Evans
Assuming there is some right of "freedom to travel"
I doubt that guarantees a right to the means of
conveyance. The very concept of licensing indicates
a privelege to use a method not a right to travel.

Au contraire: the Constitution of the United States does guarantee
you the freedom to travel in any method you can afford, and at
whichever end of the bus you choose! -- RM

[Rick Merrill]

Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:

...

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
" Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
[...] has pushed for a bill, supported by the Massachusetts District
Attorneys Association, that would suspend for two years the driver's
license of anyone convicted of allowing minors to drink. Currently,
the maximum penalties are one year in prison or a $2,000 fine."

Excellent idea. Precedent analogy: people whose kids do drugs are
not permitted to live in projects and are also kicked out of condos!

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:40:36 GMT, Rick Merrill

Post by Rick Merrill
...

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
" Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
[...] has pushed for a bill, supported by the Massachusetts District
Attorneys Association, that would suspend for two years the driver's
license of anyone convicted of allowing minors to drink. Currently,
the maximum penalties are one year in prison or a $2,000 fine."

Excellent idea. Precedent analogy: people whose kids do drugs are
not permitted to live in projects and are also kicked out of condos!

The analogy does not necessarily fit.
Unruly kids in condos are directly harmful to other residents of
condos. (But will families whose kids assault and/or steal from other
residents be kicked out as quickly as families whose kids smoke a
joint in the closet? Or is this simply more brain-dead prohibitionist
posturing?)

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Ed]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/
"Parents face charges in drinking by teens
"Adults who allow alcohol are at risk
"By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff | May 30, 2004
[...]
" Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
[...] has pushed for a bill, supported by the Massachusetts District
Attorneys Association, that would suspend for two years the driver's
license of anyone convicted of allowing minors to drink. Currently,
the maximum penalties are one year in prison or a $2,000 fine."
[end of quote from article]
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended...

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended...
for unsafe driving

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

Why give a scofflaw repeat-drunk driver a second chance to kill
someone? Confiscating the car the first time around gets him off the
road, *and* the auction helps pay for public safety. (This is one of
relatively few cases where I approve of profit incentives behind law
enforcement.)

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Ed]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_
fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended...
for unsafe driving

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

Why give a scofflaw repeat-drunk driver a second chance to kill
someone? Confiscating the car the first time around gets him off the
road, *and* the auction helps pay for public safety. (This is one of
relatively few cases where I approve of profit incentives behind law
enforcement.)

I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

[Charles Demas]

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

And would the state pay the storage costs for the impounded car?

A person may own a car without ever having had a license.

FWIW, a corporation may own a car, and a driver with a suspended
license may control the corporation. How does your plan work now?


Chuck Demas

[Ed]

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

And would the state pay the storage costs for the impounded car?

Nope

Post by Charles Demas
A person may own a car without ever having had a license.
FWIW, a corporation may own a car, and a driver with a suspended
license may control the corporation. How does your plan work now?

I'd tackle the situation of individual ownership first, since I'm
guessing that would take care of 90% of the problem.

[Charles Demas]

Post by Ed
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

And would the state pay the storage costs for the impounded car?

Nope

Post by Charles Demas
A person may own a car without ever having had a license.
FWIW, a corporation may own a car, and a driver with a suspended
license may control the corporation. How does your plan work now?

I'd tackle the situation of individual ownership first, since I'm
guessing that would take care of 90% of the problem.

And when your licence is suspended, you sell your car to your
newly formed corporation.

Your plan only works for the people that don't want to abuse it,
which are the ones that wouldn't drive with a suspended licence.


Chuck Demas

[Ed]

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by Ed
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

And would the state pay the storage costs for the impounded car?

Nope

Post by Charles Demas
A person may own a car without ever having had a license.
FWIW, a corporation may own a car, and a driver with a suspended
license may control the corporation. How does your plan work now?

I'd tackle the situation of individual ownership first, since I'm
guessing that would take care of 90% of the problem.

And when your licence is suspended, you sell your car to your
newly formed corporation.

And if the person whose license was suspended is then caught operating
the car the corporation is hit really hard, like it's president goes to
jail. It shouldn't be that difficult to keep suspended drivers off the
road if lawmakers and courts really wanted to.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_
fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended
for unsafe driving

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

Why give a scofflaw repeat-drunk driver a second chance to kill
someone? Confiscating the car the first time around gets him off the
road, *and* the auction helps pay for public safety. (This is one of
relatively few cases where I approve of profit incentives behind law
enforcement.)

I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

OK, I misunderstood you. You sound somewhat stricter than I am. As
Chuck asks, however, who would pay for impounding a car during the
first suspension? How about the numerous cases where more than one
family member uses the car?

And if someone promises to keep the suspendee from driving, is the
best remedy for one ignored license-suspension a second
license-suspension, also likely to be ignored? Seizing and auctioning
the scofflaw's car is more certain and cost-effective.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

[Rick Merrill]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/parents_
fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended
for unsafe driving

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

Why give a scofflaw repeat-drunk driver a second chance to kill
someone? Confiscating the car the first time around gets him off the
road, *and* the auction helps pay for public safety. (This is one of
relatively few cases where I approve of profit incentives behind law
enforcement.)

I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

OK, I misunderstood you. You sound somewhat stricter than I am. As
Chuck asks, however, who would pay for impounding a car during the
first suspension? How about the numerous cases where more than one
family member uses the car?

That's how SPAM is handled: when an ISP allows spam through, all the
members of that ISP cannot send email. The above is a FINE way to
get the rules enforced: get your family members to toe the line or
you may loose Your car privs too.

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
And if someone promises to keep the suspendee from driving, is the
best remedy for one ignored license-suspension a second
license-suspension, also likely to be ignored? Seizing and auctioning
the scofflaw's car is more certain and cost-effective.

That would be a case-by-case thing. - RM

[Ed]

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/05/30/paren
ts_
fac
e_charges_in_drinking_by_teens/

[...]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
Maybe we need tougher laws against adults who allow other people's
kids to drink, but the proper remedy would be a higher fine. License
suspensions for non-driving offenses remove the stigma from unsafe
drivers who operate with suspended licenses.
First let's get dangerous drivers off the road. Confiscate the cars
of those caught driving with a license suspended
for unsafe driving

I'd like to see confiscation of cars for everyone with a suspended
license,...unless someone is willing to step up and accept
responsiblility for assuring that the car will not be driven by the
person with the suspended license. If the person with the suspended
license is caught driving that car, the person who took responsiblility
for assuring the the car wouldn't be driven would lose his license.

Why give a scofflaw repeat-drunk driver a second chance to kill
someone? Confiscating the car the first time around gets him off the
road, *and* the auction helps pay for public safety. (This is one of
relatively few cases where I approve of profit incentives behind law
enforcement.)

I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

OK, I misunderstood you. You sound somewhat stricter than I am. As
Chuck asks, however, who would pay for impounding a car during the
first suspension?

The owner.

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
How about the numerous cases where more than one
family member uses the car?

The other family member certifies that he (she) has control of the key
and won't let the person with the suspended license drive. If the
person with the suspended license is caught driving the car the person
who swore it wouldn't happen is in big trouble.

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
And if someone promises to keep the suspendee from driving, is the
best remedy for one ignored license-suspension a second
license-suspension, also likely to be ignored? Seizing and auctioning
the scofflaw's car is more certain and cost-effective.

Seizing and auctioning the car is what happens if the person who
promised to keep the suspended license person from driving fails in
that task.

[Charles Demas]

Post by Ed

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

OK, I misunderstood you. You sound somewhat stricter than I am. As
Chuck asks, however, who would pay for impounding a car during the
first suspension?

The owner.

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
How about the numerous cases where more than one
family member uses the car?

The other family member certifies that he (she) has control of the key
and won't let the person with the suspended license drive. If the
person with the suspended license is caught driving the car the person
who swore it wouldn't happen is in big trouble.

Post by Hugo S. Cunningham
And if someone promises to keep the suspendee from driving, is the
best remedy for one ignored license-suspension a second
license-suspension, also likely to be ignored? Seizing and auctioning
the scofflaw's car is more certain and cost-effective.

Seizing and auctioning the car is what happens if the person who
promised to keep the suspended license person from driving fails in
that task.

You all seem to forget that the RMV can suspend your licence without
giving you so much as a hearing.

Impounding the car without a hearing seems like we're giving the
RMV more power than it should have.

Selling it is way too much power an agency to wield without court
action.


Chuck Demas

[George D. Phillies]

I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.

This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

Post by Ed
I think that's what I was suggesting: the moment your license is
suspended your car is either impounded or turned over to someone who
assures the state that you will not be permitted to drive it.

[Charles Demas]

Post by George D. Phillies
I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

In this country/state, there is a difference between theft and
unauthorized borrowing.

Theft is for those cases when the taker intended to permanently
deprive the car owner of his property.


Chuck Demas

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Post by George D. Phillies
I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

Charles> In this country/state, there is a difference between theft
Charles> and unauthorized borrowing.

That "unauthorized borrowing" just a Massachusetts thing, isn't it?

[George D. Phillies]

Post by Christopher C. Stacy

Post by George D. Phillies
I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

Charles> In this country/state, there is a difference between theft
Charles> and unauthorized borrowing.
That "unauthorized borrowing" just a Massachusetts thing, isn't it?

I will not claim tht it is unique to Massachusetts, but when I moved from
MA to CA and described it, the locals including at least one attorney
found it hysterically funny. This was some time ago, and they may have
changed since, but at the time an automobile was presumed to be worth at
least $1000, 'unauthorized borrowing' was locally viewed as 'grand
larceny', and the philosophical basis for the car theft laws was the older
horse theft laws: We hang horse thieves.

Curiously, their theft issue was much less than ours.

George

[Charles Demas]

Post by George D. Phillies

Post by Christopher C. Stacy

Post by George D. Phillies

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Charles Demas

I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

Charles> In this country/state, there is a difference between theft
Charles> and unauthorized borrowing.
That "unauthorized borrowing" just a Massachusetts thing, isn't it?

I will not claim tht it is unique to Massachusetts, but when I moved from
MA to CA and described it, the locals including at least one attorney
found it hysterically funny. This was some time ago, and they may have
changed since, but at the time an automobile was presumed to be worth at
least $1000, 'unauthorized borrowing' was locally viewed as 'grand
larceny', and the philosophical basis for the car theft laws was the older
horse theft laws: We hang horse thieves.

The basis of the unauthorized borrowing law probably involves
intent. Without criminal intent there is no crime. So, if the
idea was to go for a joy ride and return the car, there's no intent
to commit larceny. But if the idea was to go for a joy ride and then
trash the car, that's different.

How does one tell the difference? Sometimes what occurs answers that.
"Res ipse loquitor" is the legaleze Latin for "The thing speaks for
itself."


Chuck Demas

[Ed]

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by George D. Phillies
I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

In this country/state, there is a difference between theft and
unauthorized borrowing.
Theft is for those cases when the taker intended to permanently
deprive the car owner of his property.

A fine point that I think is total BS.

[Sam I Am]

Post by Charles Demas

Post by George D. Phillies
I seem to recall one European country in which if a vehicle is found to
be being driven by a drunk then either (i) the owner specifies that the
vehicle was stolen, and the driver is prosecuted for auto theft, or (ii)
the owner does not so specify, in which case the vehicle gets 90 days in
storage for participating in a drunk driving offense.
This arrangement tends to focus the minds of owners.

In this country/state, there is a difference between theft and
unauthorized borrowing.
Theft is for those cases when the taker intended to permanently
deprive the car owner of his property.

Man are you about a million miles away from any known law text. Theft is
theft. Kids who take a car for a joyride have no intention of permanently
depriving the car own of his/her property, yet it's still considered car
theft. The severity of the crime is for a jury and/or judge to decide.